When Native Americans were moved to Indian Reservations in the mid- to late 1800s, most were left with limited economic opportunity.

Today, most of these reservations "are located in remote areas with little indigenous economic activity .... [They] have some of the highest rates of poverty, unemployment, welfare dependency, school dropout, alcoholism, and other indicators of poverty and social distress of any communities in the U.S."[3] The use of gaming to generate profit did not begin until the late 1970s and early 1980s within Indian communities.

While a number of court rulings played a significant role in the development of legislation regarding reservation gambling rights, two landmark cases, Bryan v. Itasca County and California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, provided major legal breakthroughs.

In the early 1970s, Helen and Russell Bryan, members of the Chippewa Tribe, lived on a reservation in Itasca County, Minnesota.

Yet, Public Law 280, passed by Congress in 1953, transferred criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations from the federal government to certain states.

The Court interpreted PL 280 more narrowly, designed to address only "crimes and civil disputes, not a unilateral grant of broad authority to states.

This new interpretation of PL 280 opened the gates for the Indian gaming industry and led to the creation of a variety of economic development ventures on reservations.

[4] Another court case that paved the way for the IGRA was in the mid-1980s when the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians started a small bingo parlor and card club on their southern California reservation.

Tribes fought the states in an effort both to maintain tribal sovereignty and to protect Indian gaming revenues to support economic development.

Whether revenue from the Indian casinos was subject to other governmental taxation was determined in Chickasaw Nation v. United States.

[11] And, in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Carcieri v. Salazar that the Department of the Interior could not take land into trust that was acquired by tribes recognized after 1934.

Regulatory authority over class I gaming is vested exclusively in tribal governments and is not subject to IGRA's requirements.

[14] Although gaming has caused economic growth among many tribes, it has also become an attractive target to criminal groups who hope to profit from illegal betting, embezzlement, etc.

NIGC Regional Headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Phoenix, Arizona; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Based on its congressional mandate, it is dependent on the FBI and/or other federal agencies to investigate allegations of criminal activity in Indian gaming establishments.

To fulfill its mission, the NIGA works with the federal government and members of congress to develop sound policies and practices and to provide technical assistance and advocacy on gaming issues.

It is the first structure to be owned by Native Americans in Washington, D.C.[17] NIGA is presided by Ernest L. Stevens, Jr. who serves as the chairman and by Andy Ebona acting as the treasurer.

The IGWG's purpose is to identify resources needed to address the most pressing criminal violations in the area of Indian gaming.

According to Census Bureau data, the inflation-adjusted income of Native Americans living on reservations grew by 83 percent from 1970 to 2000.

[21] In 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that of over 4 million Native American citizens, nearly 30 percent are living in poverty, often lacking basic infrastructure.

Chief Justice John Marshall stated that Native American tribes are "domestic dependent nations under the umbrella of U.S. government protection.

Some even cite the Tenth Amendment – the right for states to have all other powers not specifically designated to the federal government – to fight against gambling.

Others feel the federal government is forcing states to enter into unfair gaming-related compacts with Native American tribes.

[25][26] Naomi Mezey, a professor of law and culture at Georgetown, argues that as Native American gaming regulations currently stand, the IGRA fails to provide Indians with economic independence.

"The federal entitlement of Native Americans to game on tribal lands does not implicate economic development policy and wealth distribution alone.

[29] In addition, compacts often include language relating to a state's right to enforce criminal and civil law and prosecution for gambling-related crimes.

One reason for the opposition comes from the fact that the Bureau of Indian Affairs grants tax-payer money to tribes for economic development purposes.

Such high-stakes gambling in tribal areas and tax-exempt policy give Indian casinos great advantages in this competition.

Consequently, Non-Indian casinos have lobbied the government to strengthen the regulatory power of the states toward Indian gaming.

Several Congressional members have expressed concern about the lack of regulation related to revenue sharing from funds generated by gaming.